4 ms·

In one of the most left-leaning states in the union, in one of it's richest cities, all the most well-meaning welfare programs have failed to make a dent in the

In one of the most left-leaning states in the union, in one of it's richest cities, all the most well-meaning welfare programs have failed to make a dent in the problem. If that isn't a fantastic argument for Basic Income I don't know what could be more persuasive. Edit: Commenter below summarized my (admittedly poorly phrased) point better than I can: > The current programs are focussed around spending the minimum amount of money possible on as few people as possible, which is an expensive and inefficient proposal. The parent's suggestion is to give people the power in their own lives, which studies have shown can result in huge turnarounds for people in unpleasant situations. > So OP is suggesting that overly complicated, byzantine, and underfunded welfare programs aren't working, so maybe we should give up and do what experts have been suggesting, and studies have shown results from, instead. And no, this does not address the problem of mental illness but if we're going to continue to ignore this problem until we can find a solution that works for all homeless, just shoot them now and limit their suffering because it will never happen.

lostlogin 10y ago
Is anyone able to explain what this view is being down voted? I'm picking that the second paragraph is the problem - there must be hard data on that thought somewhere?
- yeahwhatever10 10y ago
  He says well-meaning welfare programs aren't working, and then suggests another well-meaning welfare program.
  - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
    I think we need Basic Housing in addition to Basic Income.
    - mdorazio 10y ago
      The two are largely the same thing. If you have basic income, you can spend it on cheap housing and effectively have Basic Housing with no additional administrative overhead. If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results. Homelessness is often tied to drug addiction and mental health issues, neither of which are really directly helped by free housing or free money.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results Where can I read about these mixed results?
        ItsDeathball 10y ago
        Assuming that's a serious request, this is a decent summary and starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...
        stcredzero 10y ago
        "Concentrated poverty" This seems like a bad idea. Any culture that contains something of value needs to absorb new members a little at a time. A culture or scene that tries to absorb many new members all at once is going to be damaged or at least significantly changed in the process. So it would seem that scattered site housing is the new norm. Now, the problem is that it's harder for such residents to become part of the local community networks. (Often suburbia is distinctly isolating.) Some social organization similar to a church would seem to be the idea method of providing the residents a social network.
    - msandford 10y ago
      While we're at it could we also get Basic Car and Basic Food and Basic Videogames? I could really use Basic Cable too.
      - FussyZeus 10y ago
        You say this as if giving people who can't contribute to society a place to live and recreational activities would be the downfall of civilization. Homeless are expensive as hell to have. They visit ERs instead of getting preventive care, not that they can afford either, they devalue property where they squat, they occupy emergency services like police when property owners complain, they spread disease, etc. etc. etc. You can joke about giving people a home like it's just going to ruin the country, but we're already subsidizing these people with emergency services, jails, and police. Just giving them a home with some basic amenities both gives them the chance to actually contribute and at the same time, and basic income allows them to manage their own money, even if they aren't earning it, to give them some semblance of dignity. And in almost every case studied, it's cheaper.
        msandford 10y ago
        You talk as though all homeless people are in the same category; down on their luck folks who are just having a hard time pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of homeless people who are like that and who really do just need a helping hand and some support for 6mo or a year and they're back to being productive members of society. I won't argue with this because it's absolutely true! But there are also people who are homeless because of untreated mental illness, who "choose" to be homeless because they're too far out there to participate in traditional society. These folks (probably) need help, but just giving them a house and money for food isn't necessarily the answer. And there are also folks who choose to be homeless. People who think society is really effed up and that they don't want to be a part of it. I've met folks like this and talked with them at length and they know full well what they're doing, why, and whatnot. They're not down on their luck and they don't have any kind of debilitating mental illness; they have very well founded reasons for rejecting society and you won't convince them otherwise. They obviously have different values than most, but that doesn't mean they're crazy or wrong. If you give them a house they'll probably just laugh at the "idiots" trash it, spend the money profligately and continue doing whatever makes them happy. Pretending that you've got a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem is either incredibly naive or just downright intellectually dishonest. I'm not terribly interested in people peddling snake oil.
    - blaisio 10y ago
      I'm not sure I agree with that. Basic income is much easier for the government to setup than basic housing. And people could just use their basic income to get housing.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      As someone who is for such programs in principle, and willing to pay even more taxes from my high IT freelancer income to support the parts of society worse off, still I am not in the mood for "simple" solutions. It was tried giving people housing. The problem is not doing that once - the problem is the ongoing process. Even in Africa the helpers switched to letting people pay for basic services instead of giving it to them for free, not because "capitalism", but because it turned out they didn't value free stuff and ruined or ignored it. Similar with the homeless, and in addition a large part of them has mental issues! If you want to have ruined housing, sure, just give them free housing now. But a solution that involves an entire well-organized system that takes care of them and the housing is needed - and likely a very flexible individualized one. Some may need almost constant help, for others checking on them occasionally and giving nudges and support is enough. "Basic income" is not a solution for this problem. Most of those people on the street are very likely to gain next to zero benefit from (just) getting money.
  - danudey 10y ago
    Well-meaning but condescending welfare programs don't work. Current welfare programs assume that people who are on welfare need to be managed with kid gloves because they're incapable of being responsible, punish people who can't follow arbitrary guidelines, and generally don't provide enough money anyway. In Vancouver, as an example, people on welfare don't get enough money to rent a bedroom from someone, let alone pay for food, clothes, transportation, taking care of children if they have any, etc. Even if someone on welfare does get a job, there's a decent chance it won't pay them enough to afford child care so it'll be a net loss in the end. You also have to prove that you're out there looking for a job every day, but there's such a stigma against people on welfare that it can be difficult to be hired, so the government is requiring people to go out every day and be told no over and over again. These people are often unskilled and have no money to learn new skills, so they're stuck getting low-paying jobs which also don't provide enough money to learn new skills, and so on and so on. A basic income system would save a significant amount of money on bureaucracy, making sure people are looking for work or jumping through hoops to pay someone not enough to live on and then take it away as soon as possible. It would also give people a lot more opportunities for entrepreneurialism, education, child care, and so on. The current programs are focussed around spending the minimum amount of money possible on as few people as possible, which is an expensive and inefficient proposal. The parent's suggestion is to give people the power in their own lives, which studies have shown can result in huge turnarounds for people in unpleasant situations. So OP is suggesting that overly complicated, byzantine, and underfunded welfare programs aren't working, so maybe we should give up and do what experts have been suggesting, and studies have shown results from, instead.
- zip1234 10y ago
  Probably because it is assuming that the problem is not enough money. How would giving people $1000/mo get treat addiction or mental illness? I'm not saying that there is hard data that it won't help but there isn't any to show either way.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    The problem is not enough money reaching the people we're trying to help. It's money spent stupidly.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    A lot of places have unemployment or sickness benefits and housing allowances (like where I live). It isn't called the same thing but this ticks many of the same boxes. Couldn't this be used as a comparison?
- axlee 10y ago
  I think people downvoted her because there is no causality link whatsoever between her observation and her conclusion. Also, from an european's point of view, calling SF policies "left-leaning" is quite amusing.
  - blaisio 10y ago
    Maybe you should be more specific about where you're from, because much of Europe is definitely not more "left-leaning" than SF.
    - axlee 10y ago
      I am from the nordics but I live in the states.
- frandroid 10y ago
  He states one problem and states that its existence demonstrates that a proposed solution is obvious, a relation that is extremely tenuous.
defen 10y ago
I don't know, I come to the opposite conclusion - some people simply do not want to be "upstanding" (or even minimally participatory) members of society, whether due to mental illness, severe drug addiction, or simple preference. I don't see how giving them "free" money will change that.

lostlogin 10y ago

Is anyone able to explain what this view is being down voted? I'm picking that the second paragraph is the problem - there must be hard data on that thought somewhere?

yeahwhatever10 10y ago
He says well-meaning welfare programs aren't working, and then suggests another well-meaning welfare program.
- ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
  I think we need Basic Housing in addition to Basic Income.
  - mdorazio 10y ago
    The two are largely the same thing. If you have basic income, you can spend it on cheap housing and effectively have Basic Housing with no additional administrative overhead. If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results. Homelessness is often tied to drug addiction and mental health issues, neither of which are really directly helped by free housing or free money.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      If you're saying that we need to specifically provide free housing to the homeless and/or poor then that's a program that some cities have already tried with mixed results Where can I read about these mixed results?
      - ItsDeathball 10y ago
        Assuming that's a serious request, this is a decent summary and starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...
        stcredzero 10y ago
        "Concentrated poverty" This seems like a bad idea. Any culture that contains something of value needs to absorb new members a little at a time. A culture or scene that tries to absorb many new members all at once is going to be damaged or at least significantly changed in the process. So it would seem that scattered site housing is the new norm. Now, the problem is that it's harder for such residents to become part of the local community networks. (Often suburbia is distinctly isolating.) Some social organization similar to a church would seem to be the idea method of providing the residents a social network.
  - msandford 10y ago
    While we're at it could we also get Basic Car and Basic Food and Basic Videogames? I could really use Basic Cable too.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      You say this as if giving people who can't contribute to society a place to live and recreational activities would be the downfall of civilization. Homeless are expensive as hell to have. They visit ERs instead of getting preventive care, not that they can afford either, they devalue property where they squat, they occupy emergency services like police when property owners complain, they spread disease, etc. etc. etc. You can joke about giving people a home like it's just going to ruin the country, but we're already subsidizing these people with emergency services, jails, and police. Just giving them a home with some basic amenities both gives them the chance to actually contribute and at the same time, and basic income allows them to manage their own money, even if they aren't earning it, to give them some semblance of dignity. And in almost every case studied, it's cheaper.
      - msandford 10y ago
        You talk as though all homeless people are in the same category; down on their luck folks who are just having a hard time pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of homeless people who are like that and who really do just need a helping hand and some support for 6mo or a year and they're back to being productive members of society. I won't argue with this because it's absolutely true! But there are also people who are homeless because of untreated mental illness, who "choose" to be homeless because they're too far out there to participate in traditional society. These folks (probably) need help, but just giving them a house and money for food isn't necessarily the answer. And there are also folks who choose to be homeless. People who think society is really effed up and that they don't want to be a part of it. I've met folks like this and talked with them at length and they know full well what they're doing, why, and whatnot. They're not down on their luck and they don't have any kind of debilitating mental illness; they have very well founded reasons for rejecting society and you won't convince them otherwise. They obviously have different values than most, but that doesn't mean they're crazy or wrong. If you give them a house they'll probably just laugh at the "idiots" trash it, spend the money profligately and continue doing whatever makes them happy. Pretending that you've got a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem is either incredibly naive or just downright intellectually dishonest. I'm not terribly interested in people peddling snake oil.
  - blaisio 10y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with that. Basic income is much easier for the government to setup than basic housing. And people could just use their basic income to get housing.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    As someone who is for such programs in principle, and willing to pay even more taxes from my high IT freelancer income to support the parts of society worse off, still I am not in the mood for "simple" solutions. It was tried giving people housing. The problem is not doing that once - the problem is the ongoing process. Even in Africa the helpers switched to letting people pay for basic services instead of giving it to them for free, not because "capitalism", but because it turned out they didn't value free stuff and ruined or ignored it. Similar with the homeless, and in addition a large part of them has mental issues! If you want to have ruined housing, sure, just give them free housing now. But a solution that involves an entire well-organized system that takes care of them and the housing is needed - and likely a very flexible individualized one. Some may need almost constant help, for others checking on them occasionally and giving nudges and support is enough. "Basic income" is not a solution for this problem. Most of those people on the street are very likely to gain next to zero benefit from (just) getting money.
- danudey 10y ago
  Well-meaning but condescending welfare programs don't work. Current welfare programs assume that people who are on welfare need to be managed with kid gloves because they're incapable of being responsible, punish people who can't follow arbitrary guidelines, and generally don't provide enough money anyway. In Vancouver, as an example, people on welfare don't get enough money to rent a bedroom from someone, let alone pay for food, clothes, transportation, taking care of children if they have any, etc. Even if someone on welfare does get a job, there's a decent chance it won't pay them enough to afford child care so it'll be a net loss in the end. You also have to prove that you're out there looking for a job every day, but there's such a stigma against people on welfare that it can be difficult to be hired, so the government is requiring people to go out every day and be told no over and over again. These people are often unskilled and have no money to learn new skills, so they're stuck getting low-paying jobs which also don't provide enough money to learn new skills, and so on and so on. A basic income system would save a significant amount of money on bureaucracy, making sure people are looking for work or jumping through hoops to pay someone not enough to live on and then take it away as soon as possible. It would also give people a lot more opportunities for entrepreneurialism, education, child care, and so on. The current programs are focussed around spending the minimum amount of money possible on as few people as possible, which is an expensive and inefficient proposal. The parent's suggestion is to give people the power in their own lives, which studies have shown can result in huge turnarounds for people in unpleasant situations. So OP is suggesting that overly complicated, byzantine, and underfunded welfare programs aren't working, so maybe we should give up and do what experts have been suggesting, and studies have shown results from, instead.
zip1234 10y ago
Probably because it is assuming that the problem is not enough money. How would giving people $1000/mo get treat addiction or mental illness? I'm not saying that there is hard data that it won't help but there isn't any to show either way.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  The problem is not enough money reaching the people we're trying to help. It's money spent stupidly.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  A lot of places have unemployment or sickness benefits and housing allowances (like where I live). It isn't called the same thing but this ticks many of the same boxes. Couldn't this be used as a comparison?
axlee 10y ago
I think people downvoted her because there is no causality link whatsoever between her observation and her conclusion. Also, from an european's point of view, calling SF policies "left-leaning" is quite amusing.
- blaisio 10y ago
  Maybe you should be more specific about where you're from, because much of Europe is definitely not more "left-leaning" than SF.
  - axlee 10y ago
    I am from the nordics but I live in the states.
frandroid 10y ago
He states one problem and states that its existence demonstrates that a proposed solution is obvious, a relation that is extremely tenuous.

defen 10y ago

I don't know, I come to the opposite conclusion - some people simply do not want to be "upstanding" (or even minimally participatory) members of society, whether due to mental illness, severe drug addiction, or simple preference. I don't see how giving them "free" money will change that.